Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1982, with the passage at Westminster of the Constitution Act, 1982,1 Canada, for the first time, achieved legal control over her constitution, thus breaking the last tie of governance with the United Kingdom, except for the purely symbolic role of the monarchy.At the same time, we also adopted a completely new constitutional device for this country, an entrenched bill of rights known as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,2 and explicit constitutional protection of Aboriginal rights.3Because of the profound and innovative nature of these changes, the way they were achieved, and the controversy that embroiled the country in the process, I think it is legitimate to call it a revolution-as much, say, as the Quiet Revolution in Quebec.I was involved with this process for 22 years, longer than any other official or politician.I will not undertake here to provide a complete history of the process, to which many others have contributed parts (while other parts remain to be ferreted out of government documents).Instead, around a narrative of the major issues and events, I will add some personal experiences and perspectives.During this same period, there were other important and related legal developments that dramatically enhanced the recognition of individual and collective rights of Canadians.I had the good fortune to be involved with four of these: the establishment in Saskatchewan of the first universal public medical insurance scheme in Canada; the adoption of the Canadian Human Rights Act; Canada's accession to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; and the establishment of a policy and process for the negotiation of Aboriginal land claims.All have contributed to a profound change in our society.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.436 | 0.249 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".